Climate Change Skeptics Eat Crow

[IanC]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

 

[SAT]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming.

How much of the warming is human caused? You have a percentage in mind?

What do we need to do to stop the warmimg?

 

[IanC]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

I would bet that even the 'evil' energy companies have put more money into warmist funding than sceptical funding. why do you have a problem researching both (all) sides of the problem? do you think that the sceptics bring nothing to the table? why do you think the warmists shouldnt have to defend their ideas against criticism? isnt that how science works?

 

[SAT]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

There is far more money in supporting the cult.

Funny how you cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- but ignore your fellow cultists' motives.

Universities don't pay as well as corporations.

I am persuaded by the facts. Unlike those in the denialist camp.

 

[gslack]

You guys arguing with another konradv clone...

 

[SAT]

I'm talking about professional denialists, not their followers.

Here's the state of knowledge about global warming

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

 

[Si modo]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

There is far more money in supporting the cult.

Funny how you cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- but ignore your fellow cultists' motives.

Universities don't pay as well as corporations.

I am persuaded by the facts. Unlike those in the denialist camp.

What is a 'denialist' denying?

 

[IanC]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

There is far more money in supporting the cult.

Funny how you cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- but ignore your fellow cultists' motives.

Universities don't pay as well as corporations.

I am persuaded by the facts. Unlike those in the denialist camp.

that's odd. I also think that I am persuaded by facts and logic. personally I think there is too much opinion and speculation involved in AGW and not enough dispassionate examination of the data.

 

[westwall]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

Then I guess that makes you ignorant beyond belief. Energy companies like ENRON (remember them?) have been heavily invested in alternate power systems and in carbon trading from the very beginning. ENRON was a MAJOR player in the Kyoto agreement. But I guess simple facts like that are beyond you

 

[edthecynic]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!

 

[Si modo]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!

Why? Scientific researchers need inherent skepticism.

 

[SAT]

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!

Why? Scientific researchers need inherent skepticism.

Researchers are paid by universities. Deniers are paid by energy companies and Fox News. Although at this point, even the energy companies are admitting that global warming is human caused.

You aren't demonstrating inherent skepticism, you're demonstrating refusal to look at the evidence.

 

[Si modo]

That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!

Why? Scientific researchers need inherent skepticism.

Researchers are paid by universities. Deniers are paid by energy companies and Fox News. Although at this point, even the energy companies are admitting that global warming is human caused.

You aren't demonstrating inherent skepticism, you're demonstrating refusal to look at the evidence.

Researchers work for a lot of organizations, not just universities.

What is a denier denying?

What evidence do you think I am refusing to look at? I will tell you that blogs and opinions are excellent evidence of opinion, though.

 

[westwall]

That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!

Why? Scientific researchers need inherent skepticism.

Researchers are paid by universities. Deniers are paid by energy companies and Fox News. Although at this point, even the energy companies are admitting that global warming is human caused.

You aren't demonstrating inherent skepticism, you're demonstrating refusal to look at the evidence.

I guess you conveniently forget that researchers are also paid by private companies too huh. Take the Koch brothers for instance. They paid Prof Muller 150,000 to do his study.
I guess they don't count right? Or how about all those companies that have paid Mann and his cronies millions for their "work". Or how about the 200,000 per year the US taxpayer was paying Phil Jones at the CRU for his work which the dog ate..or he lost, I can't rmember which lie he is telling anymore.

You are such a tool. Well I think you're a olfraud clone but whatever, you and he, and they, are wrong. And that's all that matters.

 

[code1211]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

I suppose that depends on what you think science is. If science is propaganda that supports the party line, then you have it exactly right.

If science is empirically reviewing real data, then you are wrong.

Right now the politicians that promote this warmer line of poop say there is warming and that there is an increase in CO2 and that the two are connected.

No proof yet of the connection.

GISS, RSS UAH, Hadley and the NOAA Argo Array all have data that reveals cooling since 2002. While CO2 has risen consistantly over the last 100 years, temperature has increased and decreased over the same period.

Our current warming started in about 1600 while the Industrial Revolution did not start until 100 years later.

The folks you are calling denialists are really the scientists. They are still seeking the data to prove or falsify the hypothesis. The folks you call scientists are politicians. They are seeking power and funding.

You personaly do not understand the argument, the science or the motivations of this debate. You would be well served to try to understand these before blindly proclaiming the baseless and misleading tripe put forth by the politicians you mistake for scientists.

 

[code1211]

So an accusation that he's in it for the money is proof?

You do realize that denying climate change is quite lucrative, right?

There is far more money in supporting the cult.

Funny how you cultists screech "Follow the money!!" -- but ignore your fellow cultists' motives.

Universities don't pay as well as corporations.

I am persuaded by the facts. Unlike those in the denialist camp.

The only fact that you need to pesent is the absolute connection between the prime cause of the warming and the various changes in the climate globally.

If that "prime cause" turns out to be Anthropogenic CO2, then you have something. If not, you have nothing.

I'll await your response.

 

[code1211]

I'm talking about professional denialists, not their followers.

Here's the state of knowledge about global warming

State of Knowledge | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

From your link:

"What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.

The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).

The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.

Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."


I have read this a couple times and I cannot find the part that says that Anthropogenic CO2 is the prime cause of climate change.

Can you?

The point is that what you call a denialist is someone who knows how to read.

 

[code1211]

That's the closest a denier will ever get to the truth!

Why? Scientific researchers need inherent skepticism.

Researchers are paid by universities. Deniers are paid by energy companies and Fox News. Although at this point, even the energy companies are admitting that global warming is human caused.

You aren't demonstrating inherent skepticism, you're demonstrating refusal to look at the evidence.

Unless you're a warmer, it's difficult to see things that aren't there.

If you have "the evidence", please present it.

 

[edthecynic]

really? who is getting all this money? is it even a small fraction of what the warmers get? is there someone out there handing out money for skeptical research? I dont think so.

Then you're naive.

Some of the energy companies have pushed denialism from the beginning. That's the ONLY reason for the debate, that a few corporate-funded deniers got equal time with actual researchers.

Denialism is anti-science. The OP is yet more proof that we are having human caused global warming. At this point, denialism is entirely faith based, and evidence cannot convince you.

I suppose that depends on what you think science is. If science is propaganda that supports the party line, then you have it exactly right.

If science is empirically reviewing real data, then you are wrong.

Right now the politicians that promote this warmer line of poop say there is warming and that there is an increase in CO2 and that the two are connected.

No proof yet of the connection.

GISS, RSS UAH, Hadley and the NOAA Argo Array all have data that reveals cooling since 2002. While CO2 has risen consistantly over the last 100 years, temperature has increased and decreased over the same period.

Our current warming started in about 1600 while the Industrial Revolution did not start until 100 years later.

The folks you are calling denialists are really the scientists. They are still seeking the data to prove or falsify the hypothesis. The folks you call scientists are politicians. They are seeking power and funding.

You personaly do not understand the argument, the science or the motivations of this debate. You would be well served to try to understand these before blindly proclaiming the baseless and misleading tripe put forth by the politicians you mistake for scientists.

So with all that "cooling" going on in the last decade, how is it that the same decade is the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement???? And temperature has not increased and decreased during the period. Temperature has increased and leveled off between increases, but the normal decreases between warming cycles have disappeared. Something is interfering with the natural cooling cycles between warming cycles!!!